Teacher Standards and Practices Commission
|
February 9–11, 2011 |
|
|
ITEM: |
UPDATE ON OCTOBER MEETING CONCERNING CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
CREDITS
|
|
|
ACTION: |
DISCUSSION ITEM
(Carried over from November meeting) |
|
|
INFORMATION: |
There is general agreement that the current
Continuing Professional Development (CPD) rules and requirements should be
revised. The commission has been
discussing the appropriate recommended changes for over a year. At the direction of the commission, the
Licensure Subcommittee met October 11, 2010, to continue to outline
suggestions for how the CPD administrative rules should be amended. The following summary was prepared for the
November 2010 commission meeting.
However, due to time constraints, this summary was postponed until the
February meeting. |
|
Following
is a summary of the comments from the Licensure Subcommittee meeting held in
October 2010, as well as a list of points of agreement, to be discussed by the
full commission. In addition, related
“policy issues” have been identified under each of the four topics outlined
below. These policy issues are being
provided as background to each of the topics.
Key points of agreement:
·
Should review the
current state-identified “domains” of professional development and compare
these to the national “domains” as next step
·
Should review
National Staff Development Commission (NSDC) standards to determine if these
national standards should be adopted statewide
·
Do not yet
have agreement on how many CPDs substitutes and unemployed educators should
complete
·
Should consider
conducting a survey of school districts, ESDs, and teachers to determine
current practices
Summary of comments from the subcommittee meeting
concerning the following issues:
A. State versus District Control
Comments:
·
Stakeholders (who
represent districts) split on whether they believe the state or the districts
should be in control/responsible for tracking CPDs. Issues raised include:
o
Difficult for
districts to keep track of all completed coursework – heavy workload to
accomplish this
o
If state-level
control, there could be potential difficulty getting approval of field-based
classes. [In other words, workload
burden shifts onto commission staff.]
·
It was mentioned
that many school districts still let the educators choose courses and be
responsible for completing/tracking classes.
·
Teachers should
have responsibility/flexibility to choose (OEA values autonomy for teachers)
·
Generally, the
closer CPD is to the classroom, the more valuable it is
Questions (followed by policy issues raised):
1. Who should be in control of defining allowable CPDs?
2. CPD reporting grew out of site-based management –
perhaps the time for this approach is over?
3. Could state approve district site-based training as
meeting state standards?
Policy Issues Related to Questions:
1. The Commission should consider that whichever
way they choose to go, it should be uniform. In other words, either the Commission
determines allowable CPD (like other boards and commissions); or the Commission
continues to allow districts and individuals (unemployed in a district) to
determine allowable CPD. The Commission
already engages in a significant amount of Q& A in this area with
licensees.
2. In
other words, the nod was given to districts to allow them to determine that
educators’ professional development plans would align with district objectives,
or the district could allow individual educators to select professional
development based each individual’s personal goals. Additional policy issues revolve around
reduced district funding for professional development resulting in the district
being less “attentive” to the quality of CPD provided to or obtained by
educators.
3. Absolutely, the alternative of allowing
districts to have local CPD “approved” has been on the table since the
conversation began.
B. Connection between State and National Standards
Comments:
·
Many districts
are aligning with NSDC standards
·
Many other states
also require districts/teachers to comply with national standards
·
General agreement
that connecting state standards to national standards was a good idea and
defensible
·
Subcommittee
members agreed that reviewing the national standards was a good next step to
take
·
Districts could
use what they already have in place that meets national standards
·
Ultimately,
districts will have to measure what they do against (whatever) standards are
set
Questions:
1. Where did original (state) domains come from?
a. Current domains are all performance-based
2. If districts meet these national standards, could they
be “deemed to comply” with state CPD requirements?
Policy Issues Related to Questions:
1. It
really doesn’t matter where they came from, what matters is whether they are
sufficient to align with national standards.
2. Who would determine or “deem” district
compliance? This is one of the most
important questions. Should the
Commission take a stand on the quality of CPD needed for licensure
requirements?
C. Substitutes and Unemployed Educators
Comments:
·
At the last meetings
of both the subcommittee and the commission, the general agreement of the
commissioners was that all educators, including those who are employed, must
complete at least some CPDs.
·
At the October
meeting, several substitutes spoke, explaining why they believed it
unreasonable to require subs to complete the same CPD requirements as other
educators. This meeting’s discussion of
subs followed up on an earlier meeting.
·
If subs required
to complete CPDs, looks a lot like “recency,” which is now gone.
o
Key reason for
eliminating recency was that out-of-state folks would have to do “X” number of
hours to get license.
·
Regardless of
final outcome of discussion, TSPC must give substitutes and unemployed
educators adequate notice of changes and ample time to adjust.
Questions:
1. If substitutes are not fully employable (can’t
contract fully), why should subs be required to complete same CPD as
fully-employed teachers?
2. Could people be allowed to let licenses lapse, and
then complete CPD when they reinstate?
3. What if a sub decides to return to full-time
work? Comment that districts are now
seeing a number of subs who want to reinstate full-time.
Policy Issues Around Questions:
1. Whether
a licensed professional is required to obtain professional development has
everything to do with staying current in the profession and nothing to do with
contract employment. It’s “continuing”
professional development. It can be
argued that substitutes and unemployed educators need more CPD because they are
not employed and engaged continuously in the classroom and other related work
(administration, counseling, etc.)
Commissioner statements concerning substitutes:
·
All commissioners
present want subs to complete at least some CPDs.
·
Discussed how
many credits they would want subs to complete:
o
One commissioner
stated at least five credits; other commissioners wanted at least 10 credits.
o
Chair Beck stated
that he wants to discuss domains before dealing with number of credits which
are required.
·
Mentioned that
there are lots of ways for subs to complete credits: blogs, on-line classes, etc.
·
Not reasonable for
subs to only use time in classroom for CPDs.
D.
Current
Process for Tracking CPDs
Comments:
·
Could develop a
computer program to track all classes – could be more of an automatic process.
·
Variability among
districts – some commissioners believe that it is a cumbersome process in their
districts, while others stated that process is relatively simple and
straightforward.
·
Some districts
require teacher to turn in self-developed CPD plan, other districts require
some of the classes, with teacher deciding the rest (fairly common).
Question:
1. What is the CPD process (completing, recording
classes) for teachers in different districts?
E.
Survey by
TSPC
Comments:
·
TSPC should
consider completing a survey of school districts and individual educators to
provide data and get a better understanding of current practices.
·
The following
were suggested as possible questions to ask districts in a survey:
1.
What role would
you like TSPC to fill when dealing with CPDs:
a.
Handle process
completely?
b.
Record-keeping
only?
c.
Handle unemployed
educators only?
d.
No role?
2.
What value do you
see in the CPD process?
3.
What does your
district already have in place that meets national standards?
4.
Do you recommend
using national standards as a goal?
a.
If yes, how do we
make implementation of the national standards an efficient process?
5.
Do you agree with
the current domains being used?
6.
Is district on
state-approved plan?
7.
Does your
district use a district plan, school plan, and/or individual plans?
8.
What type of
software does your district currently use to track CPDs?
a.
Is it free and
generally available software?
9.
How do you
recommend streamlining paperwork reporting process?
·
As part of a
survey, should ask about size of district and location within the state
o
Should also ask
position of the person who is completing survey
·
Should also
survey ESDs and a sample group of teachers, including substitutes and
unemployed educators.
Policy Issues Related to the Survey:
1. This would be a difficult and expensive
exercise that doesn’t promise to net a lot of useful information. It is predictable that you will find that
districts are all doing it differently. It is unlikely you will get any consensus
around any outcome other than districts seeking to unload the responsibility of
being accountable for reporting their licensed educator’s professional
development.
2. What would be gained by this survey?
3. What incentive do districts have to respond? Who in the district should respond?
4. No district has a “state-approved” plan.
5. The Commission needs to signal the field
about its possible intent and then solicit feedback.